• SeanRenaud said on Jun 19, 2007....

  If you look at the cultures these laws came from, even many of them that have survived un modified into current day (Middle East) it means just what it says.  Submit, the woman becomes property.

• uniquely-ironic said on Jun 19, 2007....

  It's such an obsolete concept in modern america that I had it removed from the wedding vows I took. 
   
  If you take a broader look at the ideal marriage of the bible you see that since "the two shall become as one" that a man would not ask his wife to do something he wouldn't do himself.  At least if he's following all of the rules of biblical marriage.
   
  Submit also is not specifically tied to sex, which is how people use it, but less generally commanded.  This could mean that if hubby wants PB&J sandwiches, you should make them.

• Holly-Go-Lightly said on Jun 19, 2007....

  
  Uniquely has a good point. I grew up in church, after many years of
  sticking with her Catholic marriage vows, my mother became a
  "feminist".
  But although she stayed home with us kids (when we were little),
  and my Dad went to the office everyday~~there was no "role-
  playing" or anything.
  It is true that when it says the wife shall submit, that he would not
  willingly force her to do anything he wouldn't do himself. That's if
  everybody does it fairly. For instance, the wife may submit to the
  husband, however, the husband is to hold her up, as if on a pedestal
  which she, equally would do also for him.
  That's the problem with all this modern crap. Don't get me wrong, but
  if you bring you husband a beer or a drink after a long, hard, day-
  immediately everyone is screaming "girl, you sit down, let him get his
  own beer, you aren't his slave, you aren't his maid..." and on & on,
  which, if this really was my marriage we are talking about, the very
  next night, (when all the nay-sayers are gone), he brings home a
  bottle of bubbly, tells me to take a relaxing bath, and has the steaks
  bbq-ed when I'm ready to get out of the tub.
  So there's the balance. Yes, its reprehensible when the man who beats
  his wife is lain out like a sloth on the couch shouting orders and demanding
  she follow them or else...
  But hopefully, a more in-tune relationship is what we would be talking
  about.
  

• fearing said on Jun 19, 2007....

  Hi, bookmarking for later....

• pickersplock said on Jun 19, 2007....

  It means I let him think he's in charge.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 19, 2007....

  honestly, i think it's probable that the word might have been translated poorly, but being no scholar of biblical languages, i haven't the foggiest.
  
  ed

• Artemis223 said on Jun 19, 2007....

  It can't be taken out of context - it was written in Ephesians as a joint statement:  wives submit to your husbands AND husbands treat your wives as Christ treated His church, meaning the wife comes first in absolutely everything and her well being must be the first and foremost consideration in all the husband's decisions and actions. 
   
  5:25 "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."
   
  Jesus was the original feminist.  Men have no greater right to salvation than women do - Jesus recognized the differences in the sexes, but never once indicated that one was superior to the other.

• curmudgeon said on Jun 19, 2007....

  To continue Artemis' point, one must look at the historical context of the passage. This passage comes from a letter to a particular church that is currently struggling with very specific tensions - namely, the women in church are finding their voice - which is obviously a good thing - but it's very disconcerting not only to the congregation but in the homes of the members themselves.
   
  The author of the letter has a fledgling church to consider and doesn't want to see it ripped apart by marital disunity.
   
  Now indeed he is appealing to the traditional gender roles of the day, but it's hardly sexist to call for harmony within marriage and within the church. It's simply the language of that period.
   
  A modern pastor might encourage the married folks within her congregation to be more considerate of each others' feelings, to try to find the most loving way of dealing with each others' problems, etc.  But in a thousand years the social dynamic and marital roles - if marriage indeed still exists - may have changed to the point where people find even THAT language is anachronistic, biased, quaint, primitive and so on.
   
  I find that this approach of seeing the Bible through the myopic lens of present-day socio-political mores to be wholly unilluminating. We need to see the big picture, hear the grand message, feel the great love that's being expressed.
   
  A, loving, peaceful, harmonious and mutually supportive relationship. A cooperative church, bound by the love expressed in the New Covenant. In other words, love of God, neighbor and self.
   
  That's what Ephesians is really about.

• Trinov said on Jun 19, 2007....

  It's not in my Bible, and the concept of submission doesn't exist in our laws, but mutual obligations do. Jews are supposed to marry with a pre-nuptal contract called the Ketubah,which sets forth the man's obligations to support the woman and to pay a certain sum to her if there is a divorce. While a woman has to have a Ghet or paper of divorcement from her husband, and cannot divorce him, a Rabbinical court can force a man to give his wife a divorce if they are not getting along and she wants out. In Israel today, a man who refuses to give his wife a divorce can up in jail until he does sign the papers. As for obligations they are both required to sleep with each other, it is a marital obligation and grounds for a divorce if it is not fulfilled. As for financial obligations a man is supposed to cloth himself below his means, cloth his wife at his means, and cloth his children above his means. (This is one law that teenagers maybe should not hear about)

• the_infernal_optimist said on Jun 19, 2007....

  To me, in context, it means that I should put my partner's needs above my own (obviously if his needs were detrimental to my well-being in a very significant way, like if he thought he needed to beat me, that wouldn't apply) and he should do the same for me.
  
  As I hold that passage, it means that marriage is a selfless union and that I should be willing to meet him halfway in pretty much everything, and maybe even take an extra step forward if asked.
  
  ~Infernal
  

• rupert7 said on Jun 20, 2007....

  THE_INFERNAL_OPTIMIST IS VERY MUCH ON THE RIGHT TRACK!

• Zayda said on Jun 20, 2007....

  Like U-I, the concept was not part of my wedding vow. My husband and I made it very clear to the minister that we would not be using traditional vows.

• jasonrest said on Jun 20, 2007....

  The reason why America is so screwed up is the family structure is so screwed up.....the reason why the family structure is so screwed up is people have a misconstrued concept of what marriage is supposed to be, there is no such thing as a 50-50 marriage.........some might argue that there is, in fact most american women would argue that there is and they are from the same place where Divorce occurs 50% of the time. In other parts of the world divorce is not as common.
  There can only be one leader in the household, that's what it means....if you have two leaders, it causes demarcation. Now, it does not mean that the wife has to spread his legs whenever he says(although that would be nice) and it does not mean that she has to jump off the bridge if he tells her to, but as long as his family management is expedient for the entire family then allow him to lead support him, love him, don't compete with him.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 20, 2007....

  i didn't get the choice in mine--it's different when your father-in-law is part of the ceremony, i suppose.
  
  ed

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 20, 2007....

  In other parts of the world people don't marry for love, they have bussiness arangments.  I'd be willing to bet that a marriage beween Shane McMahon (of WWE fame) and Paris Hilton to unite WWE and Hilton wouldn't end in divorce.  So Jas, that's not fair.
   
  As for all the people calling it a less than perfect translation the Bible itself proclaims itself to be a perfect translation.  If you believe in God it seems hard to believe that he couldn't be bothered to "inspire" the translators so they would use the right terminology.

• cotteralladams3 said on Jun 20, 2007....

  I am neither in favour of traditional patriarchy nor radical feminism.  How about genuine egalitarianism between the sexes without radical politics?

• Artemis223 said on Jun 20, 2007....

  "How about genuine egalitarianism between the sexes without radical politics? "
   
  Gets my vote - men and women are different, but neither is superior.  We should allow our differences to complement one another and the world would be a much better place.

• Antimatter said on Jun 20, 2007....

  “Submit to your husband” means you need to find a new one.

• bloc said on Jun 20, 2007....

  Is it just me or does it seem that people aren't reading the same quote that I'm reading?
  
  To me that quote (in full context) says that men should treat their wives well, but that the man is in control. The man is the decider. This sounds patently sexist.
  

• one_wired_kitty said on Jun 20, 2007....

  "Submit to your husband" does NOT equal "Woman, thou art braindead". The husband and wife work together on all important decisions, but the husband has the final say. I still have the right to say no if my husband asks me to do something inherently wrong. I still have the right to walk out and seek help if he is abusive towards me and/or our children. My husband is commanded to love me just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. Submission doesn't mean you give up your brain. It doesn't mean that if the person you're submitting to wants to do something illegal, you can do it and say before God, "Hey, I was just submitting to my authority." Scripture teaches (in Romans 13) that Christians must submit to the governing authorities, yet Christ's apostles directly disobeyed a government order (in Acts 4). Why? Obeying that order would have meant disobeying God. Submission doesn't mean you go along when you're being asked to do something that violates Scripture, your conscience, or common sense.

  Please explain to me how the following woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is less than the husband she submits to:

   10Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

  11The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

   12She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

   13She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

   14She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

   15She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

   16She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

   17She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

   18She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

   19She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

   20She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

   21She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

   22She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

   23Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

   24She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

   25Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

   26She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

   27She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

   28Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

   29Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

   30Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

   31Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 20, 2007....

  As people usually do when they are religious they are capable of somehow finding away to twist supposedly infalible text to their own liking.

• bloc said on Jun 20, 2007....

  "The husband and wife work together on all important decisions, but the husband has the final say."
  
  That's how they aren't equal
  

• bloc said on Jun 20, 2007....

  The bible is clearly sexist to me. Here is another example.
  
  "A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
  
  Now some people are making an argument that I don't accept. It does something like this.
  
  The Bible tells man to treat is wife well therefore it's not sexist. Treating someone well and treating them as an equal are two different things.
  

• bloc said on Jun 20, 2007....

  "2:9
  I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
  2:10
  but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
  2:11
  A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
  2:12
  I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
  2:13
  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
  2:14
  And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. "

• mommyof2 said on Jun 20, 2007....

  A joke!!

• beyondtheveil said on Jun 20, 2007....

  bronx- The way it really happened:
  
  Man stronger, make decisions, only we write. Woman desist, we hit you.
  Man fear losing control and fear woman.
  Man make writings to benefit himself only.
  Man, for insurance, say writings word of God.
  God say woman only good for childbearing, cooking and cleaning hovel.
  Man happy.
  

• ladyofspirit said on Jun 20, 2007....

  Quite a subject to tackle!
   
  Before I was born again, I was CLUELESS on being submissive.  To my husband or anyone.
   
  The problem, that I've noticed, with the 'submission" business is that husbands will throw this verse up in their wives' faces, simply because they want to have their way, no arguments, and they feel that saying, "The Bible says you have to submit to me," is good enough reason.
   
  But the Bible says that men are supposed to love their wives, as Christ loved the church.
   
  That part always seems to get left out.
   
  For me, submission is simple.  My husband has thoughts, opinions, ideas.  so do I.  They don't always concur.  If I truly believe I am right, I will try & get him to see things my way.  Sometimes he will, sometimes not.  If he doesn't see it my way & wants to do it his way, I let him do it.  Always with the knowledge that God will ultimately be in charge, and right what needs to be righted.
   
  If a decision needs to be made -- a big decision, not an everyday I-can-take-car-of-it kind of decision -- I won't make it until I've talked it over with him. 
   
  What is wrong with the husband making the final decision?  Somebody must, don't you think?  Having someone as the "head of the household" or the "leader of a family" or whatever way you want to put it doesn't mean a husband & wife are "unequal."  All it means is that each has different strengths, that they are meant to have different roles, be good at different things.
   
  Whoever commented above about a family not having room for 2 people to be in complete charge is dead on.  It just doesn't work.  It can't.  But the person in charge has to learn how to do it the right way.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 20, 2007....

  That still ultimately means you aren't his equal.  You can debate, beg and plead but in the end when he puts his foot down that is supposed to end the conversation. 
   
  You love you children and would do anything for them.  Even die if neccessary (as Christ loved the Church) but you still don't involve them in meaningful ways in decisions, often even when they directly involve the child such as moving or what school he/she will be attending.

• bloc said on Jun 20, 2007....

  @lady
  the problem is that the Bible puts men above woman. It's clear as day. You say that there is nothing wrong with your husband being the final decider. True, but I don't think there is anythign wrong with you being the final decider. The Bible says otherwise.
  
  You can read my quotes above. The Bible clearly puts women beneath men.
  

• Eilan said on Jun 20, 2007....

  It means absolutely nothing to me.  And that's one of the reasons why I'm going to hell.
  

• boyzmom said on Jun 20, 2007....

  I think lady was right when she said the person in charge has to do it the right way. When my lazy ex stole money from me to buy drugs or beer, he was taking away from the kids, his decisions were not God's will and I was not expected to live with that or his choice to find another girlfriend. I am now in charge of my household and seriously don't think I would be willing to submit my ability to make decisions for myself and the kids to someone else but if I ever thought about marrying again, that would be a topic of discussion. I mean there is a lot of pressure on the man to be the provider and as such he would have the final say on how money was spent or how the household is run but that only applies when that is the situation, that verse does not stand alone but as a part of the whole.

• bloc said on Jun 20, 2007....

  " I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
  
  Shh boyzmom. I'm a man, you are a woman.
  

• bloc said on Jun 20, 2007....

  I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the Bible verses I've quoted do NOT mean that women are less than men. These rationalizations about goodness are fun, but the Bible is clear. Women are beneath men.

• Antimatter said on Jun 20, 2007....

  Don’t be silly, bloc. The passages you quote are timeless truth (resembling first century Jewish society) spoken directly from the mouth of God (and attributed to human authors). There’s no reason to pick and choose the (minority of) commands in the Bible that happen to agree with our modern cultural norms. If they disagree, the culture is wrong! (Death to the abominations!)

• Trinov said on Jun 20, 2007....

  To Seanrenard. The original Bible, the Five Books of Moses and the books that were accepted as part of the 'Tanach', were not supposed to be translated at all for it was a book for the Jews and for nobody else. There were however, many teachings of the original Noahide religion, some of these were passed on to the Druids and the Brahmins, and most of it being on the more hidden levels. The Noahide religion, which was kept up in Ireland into historical times according to an Irish scholor of the 19th century, had 7 basic laws of conduct that any intelligent being would be able to deduce. This original religion resurfaced in France in the 19th century and has new branches in America quiet recently. ( A part of the Academy of Shem and Eber, the Noahide seminary, is preserved in the city of Tzfat, about ten feet below the present land level) At one point, the Hellenistic ruler of Alexandria kidnapped 70 Jewish scholors and ordered them to translate the Jewish Bible, the only one at the time. Their translation was inspired, 70 identical translations, but all in Greek. Most of the quotes that you've been fighting over are from the added Christian canon, and the translations of these from the Aramaic or Greek? are varied. In the original Hebrew sections, there are many levels to the text, all of which are not in any of the translations.

• Bronx said on Jun 21, 2007....

  Thank you, everybody, for your wonderful, enlightening, and even entertaining contributions!
  
  I am simply overwhelmed but fear that, because of time, I cannot reply to everyone individually - makes me quite unhappy!
  
  However, if you're new here in Bronx, WELCOME TO MY BLOG!
  
  The Bible really is amazing - there's virtually no part of human living/interaction/wisdom that is not touched/dwelt on!
  
  The Bible deals with absolute truth - for all ages, for all levels of understanding, for all types of people!
  
  For those claiming that the Bible is sexist or that women are inferior/subordinate to men, remember that if Man was so perfect and in command of what was placed under his care, God would not have created Woman out of him - a.k.a. Eve - as his helper and companion! ;  )
  
  Don't forget that Adam's first statement to God after The Fall was, 'The woman that you gave me....'
  
  Who can tell what was really going through his mind - envy, jealousy, anger/revenge.....?
  
  

• jasonrest said on Jun 21, 2007....

  So the bible is sexist huh!-----perception is a SOB!

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 21, 2007....

  Woman was created because man needed a companion, not because he needed help.  He was lonely not incompetant.

• jasonrest said on Jun 21, 2007....

  here here!!!! furthermore-----he did not need help nor did he need an opponent or a running mate. He just needed someone to run from spiders so he could kill it and thereby solidify his manliness.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 21, 2007....

  We also needed sex cus bestiality, gross.

• fearing said on Jun 21, 2007....

  My belief is this - God gave men and women different roles and purposes.  Each having different strengths and weaknesses.  I also believe everything has to have an order to thrive.  Someone has to be the 'head'.  I think God gave that role to man - NOT because he is smarter or better and it doesn't mean his opinions outweigh the wife's.  Taking the part of 'submit to your husbands' is largely taken out of context.  

• bloc said on Jun 21, 2007....

  @fearing
  Is this out of context?
  
  A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
  
  I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
  
  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
  
  And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
  

• jasonrest said on Jun 21, 2007....

  and then AS USUAL the woman turned and offered to adam and he wasn't thinking straight......well he was thinking straight just with the wrong head. Things haven't changed much!

• anonymous said on Mar 17, 2009....

  Any man out there that thinks he is any better than a woman is an ignorant fool. foolish men take that verse 4 granted and waaay out of context! It amazes me that u people call yourselves christians but you are always worried about other people's fate's. Women are just as smart, and needed as men, if not more so! I would love 2 see a man birth a baby.

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 18, 2009....

  I'd like to see a man go from zero to sixty in under. . .anything.  doesn't mean that a Porsche isn't subserviant to a man.  Dumb bitch.

• anonymous said on Mar 18, 2009....

  Men are natural leaders, women natural followers. It only makes sense that the one created FIRST be put in charge of his HELP MEET. We women are to meet the needs of men and serve our husbands as he serves Christ. Men are to love us like Christ loves the church.

  Please stop fighting the natural order of things.

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 18, 2009....

  Since your right it sucks that you're to cowardly to use your name.

• anonymous said on Mar 19, 2009....

  Sean - you poor, arrogant bastard

   

  It's about the message ... not the messenger.

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 19, 2009....

  No it isn't.  Anybody who's too cowardly to use their name is obviously a liar.  Doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean that they don't believe it.

• zincsalt8199 said on Jun 03, 2009....

  Women are just as smart? Are you smarter than the President? why is the President making decisions for you?? And someone better make superior, smarter decisions, right? women in church are finding their voice? or rebelling? mutual obligation?? ... if you live in Disneyland... Religious or not, Christian or not, I don't care. If you immediately think it's "mistreatment, adultery, abusive", obviously you forget about the "love" part in marriage or in verses "husband love your wife..." Logically speaking and in regard to the new modern day women's role in marriages and societies, there is a "new" question emerging from the past to the surface: How does marriage love work? Or, how does a two-people-team work? Or, in the condition of two people in marriage having equal and same rights: How can TWO people make ONE decision? Can they make ONE decision? How to work things out???

• Bronx said 1 day ago....

  Wow! what a battle, guys...Whoa... Just seeing this now. (embarrassed hee-hee).
  
  Hello zincsalt8199. Welcome to my blog.
  
  That's a good question: how two people in a relationship can work things out to reach one decision.
  
  Of course, 'reach' is the controlling term there. The final decision must be agreeable to both parties based on their usual relationship.
  
  No relationship is fifty-fifty - one person usually loves and forgives more, while the other defers to and willingly delegates authority to the other, who is trusted.
  
  Yes, trust makes things to work out in decision taking and making. Cheers.
  
  
  

• zincsalt8199 said about 24 hours ago....

  Hmmm, you have not answered my question...
  Who is the one person usually loves and forgives more??
  The Man or the Woman?
  Compromise, communication, teamwork,... sure, fine!
  How about who is going to compromise First, huh???
  
  ----------------------------==
  What does "submit to your husband" mean to me?
  He provides her love[in sex, emotion, protection & security], food, clothing/shelter[not mortgage!], and she is willing to obey him thus fully satisfy him sexually.
  According to a wife's legal rights specified at Exodus 21:10
  Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
  
  I know for now these old laws are not in effect, but there are great principles behind these for our learning, isn't it?
  

Comment on "What does "submit to your husband" mean to you?"

Currently tagged	women marriage decision role love submission men Obedience i dont believe in any of this stupidity (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously